Math for the math gifted child?

[mumkins]

I'm not sure what to use. He understands math so easy. He does get frustrated when presented with too much, so I don't want to go Drill and Kill. Any suggestions? He's 8, 3rd grade.

[Rivka]

MEP is great for this kind of kid. Minimal drill and lots of fun puzzle-type problems that call for higher-order thinking. Plus, it's free, which is always a plus.

 

I've also heard that people get good results from skipping the main Singapore Math workbook and doing the Intensive Practice and Challenging Word Problems instead.

[Spy Car]

I've also heard that people get good results from skipping the main Singapore Math workbook and doing the Intensive Practice and Challenging Word Problems instead.

 

I remain very dubious about this approach. To borrow a phrase from Moira, the Intensive Practice books are "post-mastery" challenge books, not concept teaching books. The IPs and CWPs are great books, I just don't see skipping the "core" books working out well for many.

 

Bill

[boscopup]

Singapore would be a good choice. I can't comment on using workbook vs. not. I've been using Math Mammoth and adding in the IP and CWP books for extra challenge. We have accelerated to where he is, then slowed down a bit when we got there (though we still aren't taking an entire year to do a grade level). It is a balancing act, giving them enough practice while not boring them with drill and kill. I think the key is to not spend too much time on a topic when introducing it... Spend enough time that they understand, then revisit it periodically. So if you skip some problems while teaching topic x, then when you move to topic y, go back and do a few topic x problems also. Some topics just don't require doing all the problems (place value is a good example for my son... He understands place value forward and backward, so he doesn't need to do all the problems every year... we do enough to keep it fresh and then we move on).

 

Whatever you use, YOU choose what, when, and how much material to introduce. You know your child. You can see if he's struggling and needs more practice. You can see if he clearly gets a topic and really doesn't need to do a full page of drill on it. You can see if he understands the concept but needs more practice to really cement it (standard algorithms often fall in this category). Adjust as you go, revisit problems you skipped to add in review.

 

I highly suggest a mastery-ish program for an accelerating math student. It's just so much easier to see what you can skip, or where you can go if more practice is needed down the road. Accelerating a spiral program can be done, but it's more difficult and a bit more risky, I think. Singapore and Math Mammoth are both basically mastery programs (technically they are a "soft spiral", which I think is good... topics are revisited each year, but during the year, the topics are one per chapter and done to mastery at that level). Those aren't the only good programs, of course. They're just the first ones that come to mind for me. :)

[wapiti]

also check the accelerated learner board :)

[Veritaserum]

I would definitely go with mastery. My third dd has excellent comprehension and intuitive understanding. I use Math Mammoth with her and she is thriving. She generally speaks everything that is in her head, so it's fun for me to hear her math thought processes. Quite often she takes an approach I had never considered before, but I see that it works. :)

 

Math games like those in Right Start are fun, too.

[mumkins]

Thank you everyone!

 

MEP is great for this kind of kid. Minimal drill and lots of fun puzzle-type problems that call for higher-order thinking. Plus, it's free, which is always a plus.

 

I've also heard that people get good results from skipping the main Singapore Math workbook and doing the Intensive Practice and Challenging Word Problems instead.

 

What is MEP?

[Veritaserum]

Thank you everyone!

 

 

 

What is MEP?

 

http://www.cimt.plymouth.ac.uk/projects/mep/default.htm

 

It is free. :)

[Deniseibase]

You might also keep an eye out for Beast Academy, which is supposed to come out next summer - the third grade level will come out next year, but it's meaty enough that many people who have seen the samples say you could use it with an accelerated fourth grader. Slightly more info here - http://www.beastacademy.com/

[Mrs Twain]

I have a kid like yours. I think it is important to have a core math program and do the drill even if your child complains that it is too easy. I find that my son still needs the drill even though he thinks he doesn't. One may run into problems in higher level math if the basics aren't absolutely solid.

 

Besides the core math program, I add in challenging supplements. Singapore's Challenging Word Problems workbook is excellent, as are the worksheets you can print for free from MEP.

[Spy Car]

I have a kid like yours. I think it is important to have a core math program and do the drill even if your child complains that it is too easy. I find that my son still needs the drill even though he thinks he doesn't. One may run into problems in higher level math if the basics aren't absolutely solid.

 

Besides the core math program, I add in challenging supplements. Singapore's Challenging Word Problems workbook is excellent, as are the worksheets you can print for free from MEP.

 

It is just that practicing "after" mastering conceptual understanding is a very different beast than memorizing in lieu of teaching/learning towards conceptual understanding.

 

Putting the "cart before the horse" can be very damaging to developing the strong mathematical foundation a child will need in higher level math. Memorized "math facts" can give the illusion of mathematical understanding when no such knowledge base exists.

 

Bill

[Crimson Wife]

I've also heard that people get good results from skipping the main Singapore Math workbook and doing the Intensive Practice and Challenging Word Problems instead.

 

You may be able to get away with skipping the workbook, but you definitely need the textbook. The IP's and CWP's are fantastic, but there's no teaching. I can't see using IP's and CWP's only with no textbook being successful.

 

Also, I highly recommend the Edward Zaccaro Challenge Math series. They are supplemental, but excellent for introducing advanced topics in a child-friendly way.

[Beth in SW WA]

We use TT at an accelerated pace. Works well for my visual/auditory learners who also need spiral review. Plus they enjoy it and ask for more. They use SM also. I love those meaty word problems. We use Hands-On Equations for gentle prealg prep.

[wapiti]

I remain very dubious about this approach. To borrow a phrase from Moira, the Intensive Practice books are "post-mastery" challenge books, not concept teaching books. The IPs and CWPs are great books, I just don't see skipping the "core" books working out well for many.

 

You may be able to get away with skipping the workbook, but you definitely need the textbook. The IP's and CWP's are fantastic, but there's no teaching. I can't see using IP's and CWP's only with no textbook being successful.

 

I haven't seen the IP/CWP books (still :tongue_smilie:), but, hypothetically, would it be possible to take more of a "discovery" approach and try the problems first (and possibly go through the textbook for the teaching afterward or during if necessary), or would you say that the problems are just not set up for such an approach (too complex, etc.)? I'm just thinking out loud. Maybe going "backwards" would work better with simpler problems, such as those in the workbook or textbook. Or, maybe even those problems would not be set up well for going backwards....?

[Mrs Twain]

It is just that practicing "after" mastering conceptual understanding is a very different beast than memorizing in lieu of teaching/learning towards conceptual understanding.

 

Putting the "cart before the horse" can be very damaging to developing the strong mathematical foundation a child will need in higher level math. Memorized "math facts" can give the illusion of mathematical understanding when no such knowledge base exists.

 

Bill

 

I don't think anyone is advocating to memorize math facts before teaching the concepts. Obviously, one would teach the concepts first. My point was that I don't believe it is a good idea to skip the drill even if your child understands the concepts easily. No one likes to do the drill, but I think it is wise to do it.

[Spy Car]

I haven't seen the IP/CWP books (still :tongue_smilie:), but, hypothetically, would it be possible to take more of a "discovery" approach and try the problems first (and possibly go through the textbook for the teaching afterward or during if necessary), or would you say that the problems are just not set up for such an approach (too complex, etc.)? I'm just thinking out loud. Maybe going "backwards" would work better with simpler problems, such as those in the workbook or textbook. Or, maybe even those problems would not be set up well for going backwards....?

 

Maybe. I can't say it would be impossible, but it would run counter to the way the materials are designed to be used. The Primary Mathematics mathematics materials are rather "methodical." Opinions vary on whether they are too "spoon-fed" vs not incremental enough (contain "conceptual leaps") but to my mind they are in the "core" books pretty explicit in developing a model. And it is a strong model.

 

The IPs have a child extend the model and provide more cognitively challenging work. But it is not what I think of as "discovery based" learning. Are there some expectional children who could work the problems and discover either the Singapore Model or one of their own creation in the process? Probably. But I think they would be few and far between.

 

The Beast Academy series, if it lives up to the samples, would be much better suited to this sort of discovery based learning than the IP books for most math-adept kids, methinks. Granting there are always exceptional sorts.

 

Part of Singpore's strength is it's development of (what for lack of a better term I will call) "inside-the-box" thinking." It is a "bigger-box" than you might find in some math programs, but it is still especially strong in offering a practical model. It is somewhat less good at developing the sort of "pure math" one might seek in a discovery based program and I think one could miss out on both ends trying to use it in a way opposite from how it was designed to be used. Again adding a disclaimer that there are always exceptions to general rules.

 

Bill

[Spy Car]

I don't think anyone is advocating to memorize math facts before teaching the concepts. Obviously, one would teach the concepts first. My point was that I don't believe it is a good idea to skip the drill even if your child understands the concepts easily. No one likes to do the drill, but I think it is wise to do it.

 

On the contrary, I think many people do argue for memorization of "math facts" first. It is a very common approach. I also think drill can start prematurely before there is adequate practice of mental math strategies and understandings of how the mathematical reasoning works, and that drill can short-cut the process.

 

Bill